In my opinion religions and science should stay far away from each other, to each his own.

Religion is not a science. I don't see a need to "apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims"

"religion attempts to explain the why...What why are you[not me, some religions] explaining? the why we're here?" yes you're right, I mean the purpose of our existence on earth or in general (not that I care about a purpose or a why) it is just something a religion attempts to explain. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't really know. All I know is that they try to do that and I guess it agitates a bunch of people. Also not all religions have a deity

You stated you were religious (though not specifically affiliated with a particular religion) right? That means you hold some religious belief right? You said that 'religions answer the why' so I'll ask you personally this time, which why questions do your religious beliefs answer? If none, then why call yourself religious at all?

I know not all religions have specific deities, but you put your religions answer the why forward. I reasoned from there that why implies intent and instead of using intentful force in the universe, I used the word deity since they're pretty much synonymous. stuff like Karma also falls under this under that set of definitions, though I get why you disagree on that one.

Anyway, beliefs inform actions and you are more likely to accept beliefs similar to those you hold and reject those that conflict with those you hold. As such, actively working towards gaining as many true beliefs (or most likely true if you want to go the absolute certainty route) and reject as many false beliefs as possible. What makes religious beliefs so special that you'd not apply critical thinking to those beliefs?

i'm not religious because i just think religion is ridiculous and unrealistic. i am a WAY more scientific kind of guy. science just makes so much more sense.
this is an example of a dumbass thing that happens with me and religious people ALL THE F**KIN' TIME= someone asks me about my religion, (usually christians, because that's all there really is around here) and i say, "oh. i'm atheist. i just think religion is kinda silly." and then the christian says, "dude! but if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell!" and i say, "how am i going to hell if i don't even believe in religion?" and then they or i usually walk away.

although i do find some religions as interesting stories.

There are scientists who are religious, so it's possible to both have faith/religious belief and support science. Saying you're atheist because you believe in science isn't really a logical argument.

+1 Science and Religion are two separate things, one explains the how of the known universe and the other attempts to explain the why.

Personally, I am religious unofficially (I have my reasons)

Sure you can do science and be religious. It's perfectly possible to compartimentalise your religious beliefs so that they stay outside the science. However if you apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims, religious claims will not stand up to that, leading to atheism if you define that as the lack of belief in gods (which I do but I'm no definition absolutist so I won't require you to as well).

By the way, most religions make claims about reality all the time. Be it that prayer works, that the earth is X amount of years old, that souls exist, those are all claims that are at least in theory verifiable, even if the source were outside our understanding (for the first and third) example.

And the "religion attempts to explain the why" is something I really dislike (not so much you for saying it, just the line in general). What why are you explaining? the why we're here? There doesn't need to be a why. Why implies intent. The moment you search for a why you've already superimposed the existence of something that has intent behind what you're trying to find out. It's a loaded question and one not worth answering. Even assuming a deity with a larger plan, if that deity doesn't give me a reason to go along with that, then why would I? Especcially in a universe that looks uncaring and exactly like what I'd expect if there was no plan (and no deity), why would I assume there was a reason at all.

The moment you step away from why are we here to something like why is an action moral however, that's where ethics come in and those can be purely secular and reason based. Sure you need value judgements as well, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Even religious people have to evaluate their god, so it's not like religion lets you escape that, but critical thinking and evidence based decisions can get you from basic needs to moral decisions.

In my opinion religions and science should stay far away from each other, to each his own.

Religion is not a science. I don't see a need to "apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims"

"religion attempts to explain the why...What why are you[not me, some religions] explaining? the why we're here?" yes you're right, I mean the purpose of our existence on earth or in general (not that I care about a purpose or a why) it is just something a religion attempts to explain. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't really know. All I know is that they try to do that and I guess it agitates a bunch of people. Also not all religions have a deity

You stated you were religious (though not specifically affiliated with a particular religion) right? That means you hold some religious belief right? You said that 'religions answer the why' so I'll ask you personally this time, which why questions do your religious beliefs answer? If none, then why call yourself religious at all?

I know not all religions have specific deities, but you put your religions answer[attempts to explain] the why forward. I reasoned from there that why implies intent and instead of using intentful force in the universe, I used the word deity since they're pretty much synonymous. stuff like Karma also falls under this under that set of definitions, though I get why you disagree on that one.

Anyway, beliefs inform actions and you are more likely to accept beliefs similar to those you hold and reject those that conflict with those you hold. As such, actively working towards gaining as many true beliefs (or most likely true if you want to go the absolute certainty route) and reject as many false beliefs as possible.What makes religious beliefs so special that you'd not apply critical thinking to those beliefs?

In a sense I don't belong to a religion, but I believe in the possibility of there being a preservation of our consciousness , like in computers, delete means that a space is available to overwrite with something else, but that space is still there. However since this doesn't answer the questions of why, maybe I'm not religious. Perhaps why I call my self religious is because I've yet to meet an optimistic atheist.
That's the problem, too many people nitpick religious text, and the text are left vague leaving it open to interpretation.How can you verify the religious claims?

I'm a christian, and well if i didn't believe in a higher power, I'd have nothing to ge a sense of right or wrong. If your an atheist and say that something is not right or is unfaire, how can you know what is and what isn't if you don't get that from a higher power. All that's left is your opinon over mine... a bullet to your head would fix that, and if there is no God, then when i take your life, i'm taking nothing of value.. There should be nothing wrong with that, because i say it's totaly cool, even if you disagree. let anarchy reign.

i'm not religious because i just think religion is ridiculous and unrealistic. i am a WAY more scientific kind of guy. science just makes so much more sense.
this is an example of a dumbass thing that happens with me and religious people ALL THE F**KIN' TIME= someone asks me about my religion, (usually christians, because that's all there really is around here) and i say, "oh. i'm atheist. i just think religion is kinda silly." and then the christian says, "dude! but if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell!" and i say, "how am i going to hell if i don't even believe in religion?" and then they or i usually walk away.

although i do find some religions as interesting stories.

There are scientists who are religious, so it's possible to both have faith/religious belief and support science. Saying you're atheist because you believe in science isn't really a logical argument.

+1 Science and Religion are two separate things, one explains the how of the known universe and the other attempts to explain the why.

Personally, I am religious unofficially (I have my reasons)

Sure you can do science and be religious. It's perfectly possible to compartimentalise your religious beliefs so that they stay outside the science. However if you apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims, religious claims will not stand up to that, leading to atheism if you define that as the lack of belief in gods (which I do but I'm no definition absolutist so I won't require you to as well).

By the way, most religions make claims about reality all the time. Be it that prayer works, that the earth is X amount of years old, that souls exist, those are all claims that are at least in theory verifiable, even if the source were outside our understanding (for the first and third) example.

And the "religion attempts to explain the why" is something I really dislike (not so much you for saying it, just the line in general). What why are you explaining? the why we're here? There doesn't need to be a why. Why implies intent. The moment you search for a why you've already superimposed the existence of something that has intent behind what you're trying to find out. It's a loaded question and one not worth answering. Even assuming a deity with a larger plan, if that deity doesn't give me a reason to go along with that, then why would I? Especcially in a universe that looks uncaring and exactly like what I'd expect if there was no plan (and no deity), why would I assume there was a reason at all.

The moment you step away from why are we here to something like why is an action moral however, that's where ethics come in and those can be purely secular and reason based. Sure you need value judgements as well, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Even religious people have to evaluate their god, so it's not like religion lets you escape that, but critical thinking and evidence based decisions can get you from basic needs to moral decisions.

In my opinion religions and science should stay far away from each other, to each his own.

Religion is not a science. I don't see a need to "apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims"

"religion attempts to explain the why...What why are you[not me, some religions] explaining? the why we're here?" yes you're right, I mean the purpose of our existence on earth or in general (not that I care about a purpose or a why) it is just something a religion attempts to explain. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't really know. All I know is that they try to do that and I guess it agitates a bunch of people. Also not all religions have a deity

You stated you were religious (though not specifically affiliated with a particular religion) right? That means you hold some religious belief right? You said that 'religions answer the why' so I'll ask you personally this time, which why questions do your religious beliefs answer? If none, then why call yourself religious at all?

I know not all religions have specific deities, but you put your religions answer[attempts to explain] the why forward. I reasoned from there that why implies intent and instead of using intentful force in the universe, I used the word deity since they're pretty much synonymous. stuff like Karma also falls under this under that set of definitions, though I get why you disagree on that one.

Anyway, beliefs inform actions and you are more likely to accept beliefs similar to those you hold and reject those that conflict with those you hold. As such, actively working towards gaining as many true beliefs (or most likely true if you want to go the absolute certainty route) and reject as many false beliefs as possible.What makes religious beliefs so special that you'd not apply critical thinking to those beliefs?

In a sense I don't belong to a religion, but I believe in the possibility of there being a preservation of our consciousness , like in computers, delete means that a space is available to overwrite with something else, but that space is still there. However since this doesn't answer the questions of why, maybe I'm not religious. Perhaps why I call my self religious is because I've yet to meet an optimistic atheist.
That's the problem, too many people nitpick religious text, and the text are left vague leaving it open to interpretation.How can you verify the religious claims?

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you there. Our consciousness is an emergent property of the neuronal network that is our brain. All the evidence we have about brains and their injuries point to this. Our brain isn't like a computer where you can just whipe the memory without changing the brain structure (allthough due to the modularity of the brain it is possible to target specific regions that handle memory without changing much about the rest). In theory you could copy the entire brain structure into a machine and model it's nerve input and preserve someone that way, but that's just making a copy, like taking a photo of a painting.

When a person dies, their brain deteriorates and given how we have very good evidence that the consciousness is produced by the brain, we have plenty of good reason to think that consciousness ends at death and nothing but wishfull thinking that it won't.

I've been called an optimist before, but I consider myself more of a realist when it comes to general expectancies. My sister is an atheist too though and she's definitely an optimist. I'd call Jontron an optimist too, he's an atheist as well. Still, I wouldn't want you to call yourself something your not comfortable with, just realise you use a highly diluted version of the word religious.

Finally when it comes to religious texts, at best they're hearsay from hundreds to thousands of years ago. When there's a whole bunch of different sects claiming to have received their wisdom from an infallible deity, yet they all claim different things about that wisdom, that doesn't exactly help the credibility of those beliefs. Wherever the beliefs contained in religious texts can be tested, science can point us to what we should believe about them. Wherever they aren't, we can reject them for not meeting the standard of belief we have for worldview altering claims. You don't have to know a belief is false to disbelieve (as in not believe it rather than belief that it's not) it.

i'm not religious because i just think religion is ridiculous and unrealistic. i am a WAY more scientific kind of guy. science just makes so much more sense.
this is an example of a dumbass thing that happens with me and religious people ALL THE F**KIN' TIME= someone asks me about my religion, (usually christians, because that's all there really is around here) and i say, "oh. i'm atheist. i just think religion is kinda silly." and then the christian says, "dude! but if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell!" and i say, "how am i going to hell if i don't even believe in religion?" and then they or i usually walk away.

although i do find some religions as interesting stories.

There are scientists who are religious, so it's possible to both have faith/religious belief and support science. Saying you're atheist because you believe in science isn't really a logical argument.

+1 Science and Religion are two separate things, one explains the how of the known universe and the other attempts to explain the why.

Personally, I am religious unofficially (I have my reasons)

Sure you can do science and be religious. It's perfectly possible to compartimentalise your religious beliefs so that they stay outside the science. However if you apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims, religious claims will not stand up to that, leading to atheism if you define that as the lack of belief in gods (which I do but I'm no definition absolutist so I won't require you to as well).

By the way, most religions make claims about reality all the time. Be it that prayer works, that the earth is X amount of years old, that souls exist, those are all claims that are at least in theory verifiable, even if the source were outside our understanding (for the first and third) example.

And the "religion attempts to explain the why" is something I really dislike (not so much you for saying it, just the line in general). What why are you explaining? the why we're here? There doesn't need to be a why. Why implies intent. The moment you search for a why you've already superimposed the existence of something that has intent behind what you're trying to find out. It's a loaded question and one not worth answering. Even assuming a deity with a larger plan, if that deity doesn't give me a reason to go along with that, then why would I? Especcially in a universe that looks uncaring and exactly like what I'd expect if there was no plan (and no deity), why would I assume there was a reason at all.

The moment you step away from why are we here to something like why is an action moral however, that's where ethics come in and those can be purely secular and reason based. Sure you need value judgements as well, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Even religious people have to evaluate their god, so it's not like religion lets you escape that, but critical thinking and evidence based decisions can get you from basic needs to moral decisions.

In my opinion religions and science should stay far away from each other, to each his own.

Religion is not a science. I don't see a need to "apply the same scrutiny to religious claims as you're supposed to apply to scientific claims"

"religion attempts to explain the why...What why are you[not me, some religions] explaining? the why we're here?" yes you're right, I mean the purpose of our existence on earth or in general (not that I care about a purpose or a why) it is just something a religion attempts to explain. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't really know. All I know is that they try to do that and I guess it agitates a bunch of people. Also not all religions have a deity

You stated you were religious (though not specifically affiliated with a particular religion) right? That means you hold some religious belief right? You said that 'religions answer the why' so I'll ask you personally this time, which why questions do your religious beliefs answer? If none, then why call yourself religious at all?

I know not all religions have specific deities, but you put your religions answer[attempts to explain] the why forward. I reasoned from there that why implies intent and instead of using intentful force in the universe, I used the word deity since they're pretty much synonymous. stuff like Karma also falls under this under that set of definitions, though I get why you disagree on that one.

Anyway, beliefs inform actions and you are more likely to accept beliefs similar to those you hold and reject those that conflict with those you hold. As such, actively working towards gaining as many true beliefs (or most likely true if you want to go the absolute certainty route) and reject as many false beliefs as possible.What makes religious beliefs so special that you'd not apply critical thinking to those beliefs?

In a sense I don't belong to a religion, but I believe in the possibility of there being a preservation of our consciousness , like in computers, delete means that a space is available to overwrite with something else, but that space is still there. However since this doesn't answer the questions of why, maybe I'm not religious. Perhaps why I call my self religious is because I've yet to meet an optimistic atheist.
That's the problem, too many people nitpick religious text, and the text are left vague leaving it open to interpretation.How can you verify the religious claims?

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you there. Our consciousness is an emergent property of the neuronal network that is our brain. All the evidence we have about brains and their injuries point to this. Our brain isn't like a computer where you can just whipe the memory without changing the brain structure (allthough due to the modularity of the brain it is possible to target specific regions that handle memory without changing much about the rest). In theory you could copy the entire brain structure into a machine and model it's nerve input and preserve someone that way, but that's just making a copy, like taking a photo of a painting.

When a person dies, their brain deteriorates and given how we have very good evidence that the consciousness is produced by the brain, we have plenty of good reason to think that consciousness ends at death and nothing but wishfull thinking that it won't.

I've been called an optimist before, but I consider myself more of a realist when it comes to general expectancies. My sister is an atheist too though and she's definitely an optimist. I'd call Jontron an optimist too, he's an atheist as well. Still, I wouldn't want you to call yourself something your not comfortable with, just realise you use a highly diluted version of the word religious.

Finally when it comes to religious texts, at best they're hearsay from hundreds to thousands of years ago. When there's a whole bunch of different sects claiming to have received their wisdom from an infallible deity, yet they all claim different things about that wisdom, that doesn't exactly help the credibility of those beliefs. Wherever the beliefs contained in religious texts can be tested, science can point us to what we should believe about them. Wherever they aren't, we can reject them for not meeting the standard of belief we have for worldview altering claims. You don't have to know a belief is false to disbelieve (as in not believe it rather than belief that it's not) it.

I'm a christian, and well if i didn't believe in a higher power, I'd have nothing to ge a sense of right or wrong. If your an atheist and say that something is not right or is unfaire, how can you know what is and what isn't if you don't get that from a higher power. All that's left is your opinon over mine... a bullet to your head would fix that, and if there is no God, then when i take your life, i'm taking nothing of value.. There should be nothing wrong with that, because i say it's totaly cool, even if you disagree. let anarchy reign.

There's two seperate issues to discuss here. The first is why did morality arise and why should it be kept intact from a pragmaic perspective. The answer to that is because we're social animals that live in a society together. I would rather live in a society where people aren't allowed to just walk up on me and shoot me. I'm sure a lot of people agree with that so we work together make and enforce laws to prevent that from happening. Of course as a member of that society I'd avoid killing people in the open because then I get sent to jail or worse. Basic neccicities and biological reality is sufficient to explain how societies come to have moral rules and norms. But that's just the pragmatic side. We also have this thing called empathy that naturally makes us moe inclined to be nice to people you know.

On the more philosophical side, morality arises from the realizations that:
1. actions have consequences and we can generally do a decent job at predicting these before we choose our actions.
2. People and a selection of animals are generally like me in that regard.

Now you could say without a god people don't have vaule. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. People have value to me because they can experience, they can enjoy and get hurt and learn and wonder and do all of these wonderfull things. Beyond restricting people from doing stuff that hurts others, why would I not let people do the things they enjoy? If I recocgnize that they are fundamentally similar to me, and I would like to have them let me do what I please as long as I'm not hurting them, then I should be consistent with that thought and apply the same to others.

My morality is mostly a respect for enthousiastic willfull consent and a balance of enjoying myself without hurting others.

On the other hand, you are suggesting a far bleaker view of the world. You say wihtout a god that tells you what's right and wrong you'd just kill people if you felt like it? Really?

Either way, what do you say makes things moral? are things moral because your god says they're moral? that's not morality, that's obedience.
Or does god say things that are moral because they are moral. In that case god is just telling you what's moral and we should be able to figure that stuff out by ourselves. In that case atheists like me have just as much claim to morality as you do.